Maintaining security is one of the primary responsibilities of any government to its people. Another core responsibility of good governance is the guarantee of human rights and fundamental freedoms. In the quest to uphold security, government agencies may sometimes be faced with the risk of infringing on human rights. This paper will summarize and respond to two articles that touch on the limitations of these rights. The first article, summary-response, focuses on illegal mass surveillance by the NSA, which was disclosed by the whistleblower Edward Snowden while the second one touches on the limitations of mass gatherings necessitated by
the outbreak of the coronavirus pandemic but used to mask unpopular political measures. Freedom of speech, movement, and association are fundamental freedoms that must be protected from overzealous governments that infringe on these rights in the name of maintaining security.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Liberty vs. Security: An Old Debate Renewed in the Age of Terror
In the article Liberty vs. Security: An old debate renewed in the age of terror; the author discusses the illegal NSA mass surveillance. The disclosure by Edward Snowden is praised as a form of checks and balances. The spying on innocent Americans is compared to the absurdity of snooping on Margie's phone records, the author's aunt. The NSA itself had noted that the program was too expensive and, most importantly, infringed on Americans' civil liberties. The USA Freedom Act aimed at abolishing this program had passed the House but faced uncertainty in the Senate. Republican senators are divided on this issue, as best shown by both Kentucky senators Majority leader Mitch McConnell who advocates for this program to continue, and Paul Rand, a presidential candidate who wants it to stop.
However, US Representative Jim Sensenbrenner, who sponsored the bill in the house, does not advocate for a decision based on any side of the spectrum but for a balance between freedom and security. Being the drafter of the Patriot Act, he believes certain elements of the Patriot Act, which are based on this program, should be used to ensure surveillance that tackles terrorism without infringing human rights. The author provides examples where some rights were limited. These include president Abraham Lincoln's dismissal of the habeas corpus for detained southerners during the civil war and President John Adam’s use of the Alien and Sedition Acts (1798) during the war with the French to give himself broad powers and target his political opponents. However, each time a balance between freedom and security had prevailed, and thus Sensenbrenner’s bill should be passed to ensure this balance.
Response
The common phrase goes with greater power comes greater responsibility. I believe security agencies should have as much power and resources as they need to ensure all Americans' protection and support global security but should be accountable to a democratic state's basic tenets. The cost in the fight against terrorism should not be the bill of rights, which is why 54% of Americans who disapprove of this program with a majority across Republicans, Democrats, and Independents disapprove it (Gao, 2015). Upholding the constitution and democracy is what distinguishes our country from the terrorists we are fighting. Disregarding them is dangerous because we could be giving rise to an internal security threat of our own making and design. Therefore, the fight against terrorism should be equally important as the fight against illegal acts by government agencies. People like Edward Snowden should be pardoned for whistleblowing on such illegalities if not celebrated. Edward Snowden sacrificed a lot; good job, girlfriend, and family to disclose the illegalities of the government (Greenwald, 2014). Past cases such as the Panama papers and the Watergate scandals should serve as historical reminders of the dangers of unchecked and unlimited powers.
How the Coronavirus Could Trigger A Backslide on Freedom Around the World
Allie Funk and Isabel Linzer discuss the risks of human rights being limited under the pretext of COVID-19 in their article How the coronavirus could trigger a backslide on freedom worldwide. They show human rights violations related steps in the response of countries. These include Russia, China, Singapore, and Kyrgyzstan and state that countries with low accountability in guaranteeing human rights may further persecute their political opponents and restrict criticism across social media platforms. For example, Singapore called for a ban on Facebook access to a government critic's website. In contrast, Kyrgyzstan banned gatherings in Bishkek, where there had been protests against a politician's jailing. On its part, China censured key terms that seem to go against government propaganda and created an app that monitors individuals' health before arbitrary curtailing movements of individuals and revealing their location to the police. The restrictions of mass gathering in Moscow (at a time where there were less than 20 confirmed cases) where opposition protesters gather in thousands coincided with the declaration of measures to ensure Vladimir Putin remains president until 2036. Despite these measures being partly blamed on the pandemic, most seemed to come at a time when those various governments wanted to avoid opposition and also spread government propaganda as the sole information available to its citizenry. More liberal states such as the US have also been cautioned on not loosening governments' accountability during this pandemic. The US government order for airlines to collect travelers' data should be closely monitored to ensure no abuse of the privacy of such information occurs.
Response
The response by most of the states mentioned in the article was vital in restricting the spread and panic of the coronavirus. The wrong reasons might have inspired the measures taken, but some such as banning mass gatherings were correct to some extent (Zhou et al., 2020). Even if the political measures that coincided with or followed those measures required protests, such huge gatherings would have posed a danger to the health of everyone in the world as the disease spreads through close contact (WHO, 2020). Protesters would protract COVID-19 and then spread to everyone, even people who remained in their homes, the vulnerable, and those in support of the government. Therefore, the nation's security made these measures valid and gave the authorities an excuse to take advantage of and do some illegalities. Therefore, the problem is not responding to the pandemic but the makeup and governance structures in some countries. Strong democratic and independent institutions should be created in all countries to ensure governments do not profit from security threats such as pandemics. At the earliest moment, restriction of mass gatherings saved thousands of people and allowed exploitation and violations of human rights. The alternative looking in hindsight was worse; more thousands of transmissions and hundreds of deaths.
References
Funk, A., & Linzer, I. (2020). How the corona virus could trigger a backslide on freedom around the world. The Washington Post . https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/03/16/how-coronavirus-could-trigger-backslide-freedom-around-world/ could trigger a backslide on freedom around the world
Gao, G. (2015, May 29). What Americans think about NSA surveillance, national security and privacy . Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/05/29/what-americans-think-about-nsa-surveillance-national-security-and-privacy/
Greenwald, G. (2014). No place to hide: Edward Snowden, the NSA, and the U.S. surveillance state . Metropolitan Books.
Haynes, D. D. (2015). Liberty vs. security: An old debate renewed in the age of terror. Milwaukee Wisconsin Journal Sentinel . http://archive.jsonline.com/news/opinion/liberty-vs-security-an-old-debate-renewed-in-the-age-of-terror-b99500066z1-303775951.html/?from=global
WHO. (2020). Covid-19 strategy update . WHO | World Health Organization. https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/covid-strategy-update-14april2020.pdf
Zhou, Y., Xu, R., Hu, D., Yue, Y., Li, Q., & Xia, J. (2020). Effects of human mobility restrictions on the spread of COVID-19 in Shenzhen, China: A modelling study using mobile phone data. The Lancet Digital Health , 2 (8), e417-e424. https://doi.org/10.1016/s2589-7500(20)30165-5
